Wednesday, October 29, 2008

In the second post of my “Decision 2008” series, I wrote that Barack Obama seeks to establish Marxism though he will never say the word. Well, he still hasn’t said the word, but a video has now surfaced that shows him talking in ways that remove any doubt about whether he is a Marxist.

Taken from a local public radio call-in show in 2001, the video shows The Exalted One saying that “the Supreme Court never enter(ing) into the issues of redistribution of wealth” ranks as one of the “failures of the Civil Rights Movement.”

A moment later, he says that one of the movement’s “tragedies” was that it lost track of the “activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change. And in some ways we still suffer from that.”

And while discussing the Supreme Court of the movement's era, Obama expresses disappointment that “it didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution.”

It is noteworthy that although he was responding to callers on this video, Obama spoke without the stammering, the awkward pauses, the “ums” and “uhs” that mark many of his responses when asked questions on the campaign trail. That is because he was speaking to a local and reliably leftist audience, at a time when he didn’t need to worry about appealing to the general population, and therefore he felt free and comfortable to speak his mind. Those words represent Barack Obama’s true thoughts, pure and clean and unfiltered…and they reveal a man who wants government’s power to be unfettered, who disregards personal liberty, and who disdains the notion that people should keep the fruits of their labor and use them as they see fit.

This is a man who rose to power by eliminating his opponents rather than facing them in an election. When he first ran for the Illinois Senate, he employed teams of lawyers to have all of his opponents removed from the ballot by combing through their nominating petitions and getting the magic number of signatures to be disqualified…based on things as absurd as having been written in manuscript rather than cursive.

Later, when Obama made his first run for the U.S. Senate, he trailed in the primaries until the person ahead of him was suddenly accused of domestic abuse. Then, his general election opponent watched a judge open what was supposedly a sealed divorce document containing unproven personal allegations by his wife, leading him to withdraw from the race as the ensuing media tempest ignored the campaign and focused solely on the divorce documents. FDR once said that “in politics, nothing is a coincidence” – an adage that should be impossible to ignore when one man keeps benefiting from such timely occurrences.

Nobody should forget that Obama chose to spend two decades (up until this election year!) regularly attending and financially supporting a church whose pastor often spoke in racially inflammatory language, and who said, immediately after 9/11 during a sermon with children present: “No, no, no, not God bless America! God damn America!”

Obama is a man who has chosen to spend years allied with a home grown terrorist who admits to being a Marxist and to bombing the Pentagon, and who says his only regret about his violent past is that it wasn’t violent enough. Their alliance is so close that Obama began his political career at a meeting in this man’s home.

In his autobiography, Obama wrote that “to avoid being mistaken for a sellout” he made sure to choose “Marxist professors” as his friends. (emphasis mine)

There is nothing new or different about Barack Obama. His ideas have been around for generations, they have been tried in many places around the globe, and they have failed every time they have been tried. His economic philosophy is straight from The Communist Manifesto and his governing impulses are the same ones that autocrats everywhere have always had. Unfortunately, the young people who love him are too poorly educated to understand any of this, and the aging radicals who love him are too scornful of this country to care.

Obama's ability to make people stop thinking and start swooning is the stuff of which every autocrat dreams. He is the politician for which every Bolshevik since 1917 has been waiting.

Monday, October 27, 2008

National defense is far and away the most important responsibility of the federal government. A case can even be made that it is the only reason we have a federal government, since other public responsibilities are best understood and handled at the state and local levels. And when it comes to national defense, John McCain is so much stronger than Barack Obama that there's almost no point writing about it.

McCain has always been a proponent of a strong military used intelligently to protect America and defend freedom against violent despotism. Just as important, when it comes to identifying violent despotism, McCain does so.

On the other hand, Barack Obama dwells in the mush-minded world of moral equivalence. When international acts of violence occur, such as Russia's recent invasion of Georgia, he instinctively responds by saying that both sides are to blame and by refusing to name the aggressor.

But most chillingly, Obama wants to weaken our national defenses against the rest of the world. Think I'm a paranoid fear-monger? Well, Obama himself is on video saying the following: “I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems. I will not weaponize space. I will slow our development of future combat systems. [snip] I will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons. To seek that goal, I will not develop new nuclear weapons. I will seek a global ban on the production of fissile material. And I will negotiate with Russia to take our ICBM’s off hair-trigger alert.”

Like the double-talking politician that he is, he uses Clintonian adjectives in the hope that he can use them to deflect criticism — like employing the phrase "unproven missile defense systems" because he knows many voters won't bother to realize that every missile defense system is unproven until it receives the "investment" of expensive and lengthy research and development.

And consider everything else Obama says in the above quote:

He depicts the simple fact that we may use our ICBM's to respond to aggression by depicting those ICBM's as being on "hair-trigger alert."

He says he will not "weaponize space," but declines to point out that other nations, especially China, are already doing that and will most certainly continue.

He says he will "slow our development of future combat systems" and "will not develop new nuclear weapons systems" — ignoring the fact that our enemies are constantly speeding up their development of new weaponry, including new nuclear weaponry.

He says he will "set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons" and "seek a global ban on the production of fissile material," but he declines to acknowledge that there is no way in hell despotic regimes will ever go along. His comment about negotiating with Russia is similar in that he seems oblivious to the fact that Russia never lives up to its end of any deal it negotiates.

Obama's proposed course of action is inherently dangerous, predictably disastrous, and completely irresponsible. And if that weren't enough, his stated goals will never be attainable so long as human beings are human beings.

Like Charles Krauthammer wrote: "Today’s economic crisis, like every other in our history, will in time pass. But the barbarians will still be at the gates. Whom do you want on the parapet? I’m for the guy who can tell the lion from the lamb." When it comes to the most important duty any president will ever face, Barack Obama is either stupid or naive, or perhaps he really doesn't think that American ideals are worth the cost and energy required to defend them. Any one of those automatically disqualifies him from the presidency, even if he were the stronger candidate on every other issue.

Thursday, October 23, 2008

John McCain “won” my first post in this series. Today’s post takes a look at where he and Barack Obama stand when it comes to the economy.

McCain has never seemed to grasp basic economics, which would seem to make him weak on the topic. Yet Obama is such a complete dunce when it comes to the economy that McCain looks brilliant by comparison.

Obama wants to raise taxes during hard times, even though history shows that lowering taxes is the way to turn things around.

As previously discussed in my “Obama’s Lies” series, he plans to raise taxes on small businesses. This is a recipe for layoffs and for putting companies out of business. Because innovation has always been the cornerstone of America’s economy and most innovation comes from small business rather than big business, Obama’s plan could have devastating long-term consequences for our economy, over and above the near-term harm it is sure to inflict on workers.

Though neither he nor his media allies will ever say the word, Marxism is exactly what Obama wants to establish. He has openly said he wants to use taxes to redistribute private resources, though of course he uses the populist phrase “spread the wealth around.”

When one interviewer pointed out that tax cuts have always led to greater increases in government revenue than have resulted from tax hikes – and suggested that because of this, tax cuts rather than tax hikes are the best way for government to obtain revenue for Obama to “spread around” – Obama responded by saying that didn’t matter because “the real issue is fairness.” Clearly, he is more interested in punishing high-earners than he is in helping low-earners improve their lot.

Obama’s lust for raising taxes does not stop at the income tax. He also wants to raise the capital gains tax, which would lower the return on people’s investments and thus create a disincentive for people to invest. How come nobody in the MSM has bothered to suggest that the recent plummets in the stock market might result from investors trying to get out of the market before Obama raises the rate, but finding that nobody wants to buy for that same reason, which inevitably leads to falling stock prices because of the imbalance between supply and demand?

And to top it all off, despite the fact that just about everybody believes Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are one of the main reasons, if not the main reason, for the current turmoil in our real estate markets, Obama uses Fannie Mae’s long-time CEO Franklin Raines as an economic adviser.

So McCain wins on the economy, and after two posts in this series he leads Obama by a score of 2-0.

Tuesday, October 21, 2008

For a while, let's set Barack Obama’s breathtaking level of dishonesty aside and take a look at this election on an “issue by issue” basis, tallying the score like a sporting event to see how he and John McCain stack up…because, let’s face it, McCain leaves a lot to be desired as a prospective president.

There are too many issues to do this in a single post, so I’m going to do it in a series. This first post looks at where the candidates stand on the Bill of Rights.

First AmendmentThis is the one that provides freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Frankly, they both suck on the first part. The silver lining is that they seem to be okay on the second part. Advantage: Neither.

Second AmendmentThis is the one that provides the right to keep and bear arms. Obama is its enemy and McCain is its ally. Advantage: McCain.

Third AmendmentIn plain English, this is the one that says you can’t be forced to use your home to house soldiers, unless “prescribed by law.” Not surprisingly, it seems that no presidential candidate in many years has spoken about this amendment. Advantage: Neither.

Fourth AmendmentThis is the amendment that provides protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. McCain is strong on this one, and although Obama’s entire philosophy leads me to believe he is weak on it, I do not know of anything specific that confirms my fear. So without doing any extensive research other than mentally reviewing what I already know, I say: Advantage: Neither.

Fifth AmendmentThis is the one that protects the individual against being forced to testify, against double jeopardy, and against having his or her property taken. The big hang-up is on the last part, since liberalism’s philosophy does not favor private ownership of property. Whether rank-and-file Democrats want to admit it or not, liberal politicians have a long history of acting against Americans’ property rights, and despite Obama’s carefully orchestrated demeanor of speaking softly to the general public, the politics he practices are the most radically liberal of any presidential candidate in American history. If elected, he will have the power to nominate federal judges to lifetime appointments – a power that will be unchecked if the Senate and House remain under Democrat control. This should frighten you when you consider that the Supreme Court has already rendered at least one ruling in violation of this amendment. Advantage: McCain.

Sixth AmendmentIn plain English, this is the one that guarantees your right to due process and to a speedy trial by a jury of your peers. McCain is strong on it, and though I have my doubts about Obama, those doubts are not backed up by any evidence of which I know. So I say: Advantage: Neither.

Seventh AmendmentThis one takes certain parts of the previous two amendments (namely the guarantee of trial by jury and the protection against double jeopardy) and applies them to common law in cases where the “value in question” exceeds $20. No wonder this amendment never gets talked about. But the bottom line is that I see no evidence that either of the candidates is weak on it. Advantage: Neither.

Eighth AmendmentThis one protects against excessive bail, excessive fines, and cruel and unusual punishment. I see no difference between the candidates on this one. Advantage: Neither.

Ninth AmendmentIn plain English, this one says that the naming of certain rights in the Constitution does not mean that people don’t have other rights not named in it. I have reservations about both candidates when it comes to this amendment. More of my reservations concern Obama, mind you, but I have enough reservations about McCain that I don't want to award any points over this amendment. Advantage: Neither.

Tenth AmendmentThis is arguably the most important of the ten amendments that make up the Bill of Rights. It is the one which declares that all powers not specifically granted to the federal government by the Constitution do not belong to the federal government. It also declares that all powers belong to the states “or to the people” unless the Constitution specifically bars the states from those powers. We may need divine intervention because, unfortunately, both candidates love federal power and seem to think it should be used in most, if not all, circumstances. Advantage: Neither.

Bottom line: Because McCain has the adavantage on two amendments and Obama does not have it on any of them, McCain "wins" this post.

Sunday, October 19, 2008

As you do not know the path of the wind, or how the body is formed in a mother’s womb, so you cannot understand the work of God... (Ecclesiastes 11:5)

There was joy in our lives on September 9th, when Erika and I learned that she was pregnant with our second child. This news came after what felt like an eternity of first doing everything by the book, then moving on to fertility meds, then to four intrauterine inseminations, and ultimately to in vitro fertilization. (With Sarah, our first child, Erika became pregnant almost immediately, so having to take all these steps this time around felt even more frustrating than it already would have. Erika recently began her own blog to comment on it.)

Two mornings ago, we were visited by pain when we learned that our baby passed away. The writing was on the wall at a doctor's apppointment one day earlier, and our fears were confirmed Friday when we saw the baby on ultrasound -- without blood flow, without a heartbeat, and measuring just over six weeks in size when he or she should have measured about ten weeks.

The fact that our second child never advanced beyond the very early stages of development does not make him or her any less special or less human. It feels very strange using phrases like "he or she" and "him or her" when referring to our child, but no human being should ever be referred to as "it." In layman's language, there are male sperm and female sperm which determine a child's sex at the moment of conception, but after conception occurs some time must pass before science can discern the baby's sex -- and considering how young our baby was at the time life ended, it is unlikely that chromosomal testing will be able to answer that question.

Facts forced the emotional pendulum to swing yet again yesterday, when we held Sarah's fourth birthday party and saw her having fun with her friends and taking huge leaps in her swimming progress. Today is her actual birthday and we will enjoy it with her.

Words are not capable of conveying the swirl of emotions involved in these recent events, so I will not attempt to describe them. But in spite of them, I am at peace and will move forward. Millions before us have faced such trials, and many of them have faced trials that are even harder to confront.

For reasons I can't explain, I have always known that things happen for a reason and that everything will work out in the end, so long as we don't lose faith and so long as we do our duties as we understand them.

Wednesday, October 15, 2008

Over the past week or two, Barack Obama has been saying that the "vast majority" of small businesses in America make less than $250,000 per year, and therefore will not be subject to his proposed tax increase. This statement is completely false -- by such a wide margin that anyone taking a moment to think about it knows intuitively that the first part can't even possibly be true -- yet the MSM has accepted it without question.

The big problem for us citizens is how part one plays into part two: In reality, most small businesses do make more than $250,000, and because of this their tax burden will be increased under Obama's tax plan. It does not take rocket science to see how this Molotov cocktail of an "idea" will inflict hardship on the American economy and especially on those very same working families Obama wants you to think he cares about. In already tough economic times, taking money away from these businesses would make it harder for them to stay afloat because they would have less capital to work with; this would force them to cut costs, which means layoffs; and with government making it ever harder to do business, there would be a disincentive to start new businesses.

Obama has to know that small businesses are targeted by his tax plan. That he is flatly saying otherwise, while knowing that his allies in the MSM won't call him on it, shows him to be a devious manipulator intent on exploiting people's ignorance to deceive them into voting for him.

And now for the redux. I previously commented on Obama's lies about John McCain's stance on stem cell research, lies made all the worse by the fact they are contradicted by McCain's actions in addition to his words. This morning on the way to work, I heard another Obama ad repeating the same false claims. Time and again he proves that he cares about nothing but his own grasp for power, and time and again the MSM proves that its goal is to help him succeed no matter what.

Monday, October 13, 2008

It's not that I stopped having opinions, it's not that Barack Obama stopped lying, and it's certainly not that the MSM started doing it's job.

First, work had me so swamped there was no time left to write. Then, I took off for 5 days of much needed R&R in the mountains.

But I will be back "on the horse" soon, writing about those mountains and how they're good for the soul. And most assuredly, I will also be writing about how Obama keeps lying -- and how his allies in the so-called news media keep parroting his lies, doing everything in they can to prevent the American people from learning the facts necessary to cast informed votes.

Wednesday, October 1, 2008

This morning on the way to work, I heard an Obama ad which stated (among other economic fallacies) that "banks are failing because of Washington's lax oversight."

The ad's obvious implication is that the government needs to get more involved in the banking system. However, the exact opposite is true because government involvement is exactly what led to today's financial mess. I already commented about that topic last month, and if you want to read a much better analysis of it, go here.

History shows that when something needs fixing, government's role should be reduced, not increased. But interestingly, if we use Obama's chosen word of "oversight," the two players whose corruption actually does warrant oversight are government entities, not private ones. They are Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, of course, and their very existence is an example of government involvement in the banking system.

Because Obama is playing word games by using the term "oversight" as a euphemism, this ad falls into the category of slippery shades-of-gray dishonesty. But it is dishonest just the same, and its goal is to frighten the citizenry into making a decision that will benefit the powerful at the citizenry's expense.

About Me

I am a native Floridian who has been fortunate enough to travel through much of America. I graduated from Auburn University in December ’92. Above all else I treasure my family: my wife Erika and our children, Sarah and Parker.